Re: CHAT: the enneagram

>I like that last sentence. One suspicious thing about these
>popular expositions of personality type is that they harp on
>their good points, so one is invited to bask in the pleasure
>of being told about one's virtues and talents. I am far more
>convinced by a description that accurately describes my
>vices, weaknesses and defects. So, if some test tells me:
>
>  "You are unlikely to lead a life conspicuous for positively
>  improving the material wellbeing of the general population.
>  Your are prone to self-indulgence, addiction and
>  procrastination. You are stingy with time/money. You feel
>  the world outside you is more your oppressor than your ally,
>  that it is to be retreated from, held at bay; you feel
>  imprisoned and often paralysed. What talents you have are
>  squandered on you. None of your good fortune is really
>  earnt, except in close personal relationships. Your
>  risk-aversion, fatalism and pessimism renders you supine in
>  resisting the prison that your personality makes of the world
>  for you."
>
>then I'll be very impressed with its perspicacity!
>
>--And.

>Perhaps I should adopt your attitude and laugh :-)  I find these
>correspondence theories positively irritating.  They are all
>*immediately* flawed on two grounds.  First is the _number_
>problem: there are _eight_ Jungian types and _nine_ enneagram
>types.  ...
>  The other issue is the _empirical_ evidence.  The most cursory
> examination of the facts reveals that every enneagram type shows multiple
>MB type's and vice versa.
>
Amen to everything above-

I think it is definitely worth being very wary of anyone who claims to
have a "user manual for the soul" or some such thing.  I am in total
agreement with anybody who finds these things to be mumbo jumbo most of
the time - at least in any predictive or rigorous scientific sense.

However, that being said, I think it these things are useful as tools for
self examination in the sense that they simply offer a new set of
questions to ask ourselves which can be useful for finding our own unique
forms of hubris...  (then again, astrology can be almost as useful in this
capacity, if you take it with some salt)  At no time should we say, oh,
I'm a type 4, or an INTJ, and just leave it at that.

As for the correspondence theories - I don't think there has to be a one
to one mapping for there to be a general correspondence - at least not in
personality theory (now, if this were physics or something...), and
certainly there are multiple MB types within each enneagram type - and
neither model is explicit about traits scored by other systems (for
example, neuroticism / emotional stability - which is only implied by the
MBTI and enneagram, but specificially defined by the Big5)

- I think there is at least a basic correspondence between the enneagram
and the MB along the lines of the "thinking / feeling / acting" types -
Enneagram types 8, 1, and 3 are active types (extroverted?); types 4, 5,
and 9 are thinking types; and types 2, 6, 7 are feeling types.... which
more or less covers the T/F and I/E dimensions of the MBTI.

Oh well, it's all mostly just speculation anyway.  The Big5 seems to be
the system with the most solid data behind it; and even it is exceedingly
vague and lacking in predictive value... now if you'll excuse me I'm off
to consult the volcano god about the harvest...

Andy